Hair Growth Goes To Firm’s Head; ERSP Rejects Overreaching iGrow Claims

The Electronic Retailing Self-Regulation Program takes issue with claims made by Apira Science for its iGrow hair-rejuvenation system, a helmet implanted with laser and light-emitting diodes. The watchdog accepts claims regarding the general benefit of low-level light therapy, but says firm must generate data to support its claims that iGrow can work for “anyone” and has an “output” on par with professional systems.

Apira Science Inc. should modify a number of claims on its website for the iGrow hair-rejuvenation system, a helmet implanted with laser and light-emitting diodes, says the Advertising Self-Regulatory Council’s watchdog over claims in national direct-response advertising.

In an Aug. 6 report, the Electronic Retailing Self-Regulation Program says Apira’s general efficacy and safety claims for its hair-growth helmet are supported by testing and research data provided by the company.

However, ERSP takes issue with the company’s claims that promise results within a specific timeframe and the implication that women and minors are equally likely to benefit from the product as men over the age of 18.

Furthermore, Apira has not adequately substantiated its assertion that iGrow delivers results on par with those achievable in professional settings via more powerful light-based hair-rejuvenation technologies, among other performance claims, according to ERSP, an industry-funded program under ASRC, formerly the National Advertising Review Council.

To back its claim that iGrow can be used by “anyone … any age,” Apira needs to generate performance data for targeted demographics including women and children, says ERSP, noting the firm’s supporting studies focused almost exclusively on men.

According to the company, iGrow harnesses low-level light therapy to award “fuller, thicker hair.” The helmet-shaped device discharges red light with a wavelength of 655 nanometers using 51 light sources, including laser and light-emitting diodes. The product is targeted to persons with mild to moderate thinning hair not due to underlying medical conditions.

Users are directed to wear the device on their heads for 20 to 25 minutes, three times per week, for best results.

iGrow is available for $695 at iGrowLaser.com.

LLLT Benefits Are Substantiated

The marketer provided ERSP with evidence backing the efficacy of low-level light therapy in general, including a pair of studies exploring the benefits of LLLT in adult male subjects, using computer imaging technology to measure hair thickness at baseline and after a period of weeks.

In the “Leavitt Study,” which enrolled 123 participants overall, subjects treated with an LLLT device comparable to iGrow demonstrated a mean statistically significant increase in hair density compared with individuals treated with a sham device. Twenty-six subjects (65%) in the sham-device group experienced a decrease in hair density versus just two (2.8%) in the LLLT cohort, ERSP notes.

In the “Charles Study,” study volunteers undergoing LLLT treatment experienced overall average hair growth of 37.79%, with only two subjects showing an overall reduction in hair count.

While neither study focused on iGrow specifically, both “provided adequate evidence demonstrating the efficacy of similarly powered LLLT devices to rejuvenate hair in men with mild to moderate hair thinning,” ERSP concludes.

Problematic Performance Claims

Apira claims that iGrow “has an equivalent output to most in-office hair lasers,” delivering visible results “in weeks – guaranteed!”

Variations of the latter claim set specific time expectations for product performance in the range of “six to eight weeks” to “within a 12-week period.”

ERSP notes that Apira did not submit comparative data pitting iGrow against professional LLLT technologies for hair rejuvenation. The watchdog group points out that while Apira’s device emits light of approximately 240-250 milliwatts, in-office systems – “which resemble salon dryer ‘hoods’” – boast “higher total-dose delivery” up to 2,000 mw.

Accordingly, ERSP recommends that Apira discontinue claims touting iGrow as equivalent to “most” professional lasers in the absence of comparative data from a representative sample of such technologies.

With regard to the timeframes Apira offers for results, ERSP identifies an “inconsistent message regarding the time period in which consumers could expect to receive the benefits of fuller, thicker hair.”

Moreover, Apira promises results within 12 weeks or as early as six to eight weeks into product use, but none of the tests it offered as supporting evidence were completed in less than 16 weeks.

Although the Leavitt study included an eight-week assessment, it was performed via a questionnaire to participants, which ERSP suggests is insufficient evidence to shore up Apira’s claims, particularly given that the study focused on a different product (the HairMax LaserComb) with a different mechanism of action (direct contact with the user’s scalp) and different usage instructions, the watchdog group notes.

Generally, “the evidence did not provide an adequate basis for claims pertaining to the specific time expectations of product performance,” ERSP states.

Women & Children

Apira states on its website that iGrow “can be used by anyone, men, women, any age, anyone with hair loss or hair thinning or worried about losing their hair.”

However, data provided by Apira was almost exclusively from adult men, ERSP observes.

“It is a fundamental principle of advertising that when making a performance claim that is specifically inclusive of a target audience (i.e., gender) it is incumbent of the marketers to provide specific evidence showing that the product has been tested and is effective on that expressly named group,” the group explains.

With no evidence to indicate that hair rejuvenation occurs similarly between men and women, ERSP recommends that Apira not include women in its claims until it generates reliable data demonstrating that iGrow works for them.

The group cites a similar case adjudicated by the National Advertising Division earlier this year involving the dietary supplement Add Lib, which the marketer, DreamBrands Inc., claimed could increase libido in women. DreamBrands supported its claim with a study conducted entirely of men. NAD directed the firm to discontinue the claim.

In the context of the claim that iGrow can be used by anyone of “any age,” ERSP points out that Apira Science also lacks scientific data on hair thinning in children or teenagers.

“According to several sources,” the group says, “hair thinning is a common complaint in the pediatric population and among adolescents.” In the absence of testing on subjects below the age of 18, ERSP recommends that the marketer modify its claim to specify that its product is suitable for persons 18 years and older.

Other claims in question included Apira’s assertion that iGrow provides “consistent, full scalp coverage to ensure optimal results.”

In ERSP’s inspection of the product, it found that the helmet’s laser and LED diodes do make contact with the top of the head – i.e., the scalp – but do not deliver light activity to the sides or back of the head.

As such, the group recommends that Apira make appropriate changes to related product statements.

Apira says it will make “appropriate modifications to advertising” for iGrow in accordance with ERSP’s recommendations.